Open main menu

Commons:秀逸な画像の推薦

概要Edit

推薦にあたってEdit

推薦者のためのガイドラインEdit

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

  • 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル(1.92メガピクセル)は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。
コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なPCモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。
  • スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。
  • フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。
  • 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか(例:後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等)を確認しましょう。
  • 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。
  • デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング(切り取り)等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。
  • 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
    • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
    • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
    • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では露出『構図』『動感表現』被写界深度等を見ます。

  • 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード(露光寛容度)と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合(部分)もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。
  • 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ2本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも3分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する4つの交点の内どれか1つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。
  • 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。 なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング(流し撮り)」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。
  • 被写界深度(DOF)とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角(短焦点)レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠(長焦点)レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

  • 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。
  • ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。
  • は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。
  • テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。
  • 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。
  • バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。
  • 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。
主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。
  • 『象徴性か妥当性か』 ー 『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。
画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。


画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦Edit

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明ライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ1:画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー&ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。


ステップ2:ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ3:ステップ2で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票Edit

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します:

  • {{支持}}または{{Support}} (  Support  Support),
  • {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} (  Oppose  Oppose),
  • {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} (  Neutral  Neutral),
  • {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} (  Comment  Comment),
  • 情報:{{Info}} (  Info),
  • 質問:{{Question}} (  Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます(可能ならば英語で)。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に(  Supportや(  Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名(~~~~)も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外Edit

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}   Keep 及び {{維持}}   Keep (=『秀逸な画像』に値する)、または{{Delist}}   Delist 及び {{除外}}   Oppose (=『秀逸な画像』に値しない)を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー&ペーストします。


あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

  • 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
  • その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク(画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています)。
  • あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針Edit

総則Edit

  1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後(下記タイムテーブル参照)に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。10日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
  2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
  3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
  4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
  5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
  6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" (推薦を取り下げます)と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
  7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト(将来的なプロジェクト含む)に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
  8. 推薦日から数えて5日間支持を受けられなかった画像(推薦者票含まず)は候補リストから外されます。(下記タイムテーブル参照)
  9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルールEdit

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

  1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
  2. 最低5票以上の支持票を得ている。
  3. 支持:反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
  4. 2つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後5日間で提出者以外の   Delist   Oppose)票が得られなかった候補は、5日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずにEdit

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目Edit

目次Edit

Contents

秀逸な画像の候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  •   Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Broich-Eingang-Vorderfront-2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carved portal at Haw Phra Kaew temple in Vientiane Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 04:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
  •   Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant   Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 14:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duna en Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 12:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.06.17.-21-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I was thinking about to nominate both of them because they have very different compositions. But it was or rather is not possible until the current voting period of my other nomination is over. So I had to make a decision and this picture was my first choice. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I like that one. Fully elongated vole, seems more active. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I prefer this to the other ones (nicer pose and has straw in mouth). But the flash reflecting off the fir is not the best light. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Fir? What fir?   Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Plexippus petersi (jumping spider) on a human finger at golden hour.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 00:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I think you're right :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Hockei (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Charles (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:В потчётном карауле.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ВладимирФото - uploaded by ВладимирФото - nominated by AKA MBG -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Is that a huge lens flare in the tree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good focus to the girls, but what happened with the clouds? IMO also relative small photo to be a FP. I would support this photo for Q1, but it's techincally not good enough for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting picture, but the light is too harsh. As a result, the luminous parts seem overexposed. Lens flare in the trees. Beside, the passerby in front of the building spoils a bit the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Per others, quality issues -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Frightening and funny at the same time, these three gunwomen. Apart from technical issues, the guy in the background spoils it completely. It's a shame, it could have been a very special motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the composition, but unfortunately the technical issues spoil it. —Bruce1eetalk 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Complicated composition and harsh light. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Notgeld 1 Mark 1921.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
  •   Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 14-22 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of Spitzkoppe, a group of bald granite peaks located between Usakos and Swakopmund in the Namib desert of Namibia. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like Mercury after being terraformed. Makes me thirsty just scrolling through it—the very definition of "arid". Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The central frame suffers from camera shake, I guess. Or whatever, the image is unsharp in the center. Very sorry, as it is really impressive. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't find it unsharp. The landscape is very impressive and I really enjoyed exploring the panorama, including the village close to the mountain in the center. However, I think the panorama is tilted. The right side is lower than the left side and the telecommunication tower on the hill on the right side is leaning right. So I think it needs ACW rotation. Could you have a look at that? Maybe it's just a coincidence. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Podzemnik: I've applied a slight tilt and some perspective correction, also some extra sharpening, FYI Uoaei1 Poco2 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Szczodre Gody MIR 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 12:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Pola lilla - uploaded by Pola lilla - nominated by Wojsław Brożyna -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why are the bowls empty? Strange sort of feast with empty bowls. I'm tempted to oppose for lack of food interest. Also, even at preview size, the bread on the left looks like it was crudely Photoshopped into the frame, but I think this is just a consequence of the far too high global sharpening applied to the image or perhaps it was brightened? -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice motíf, but the light is unimpressive and the image is quite grainy. I also see green chromatic aberration.--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Also, even without those issues, the background is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 11:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Alfred Stieglitz (scan by Google Art Project), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would eventually propose File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg as an alternative: smaller, but less noise. Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You're the nominator, so which one do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer the grayscale version, but I know some people will object. Ultimately, I don't care which one is featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the sepia version below better. But which was original? Did he originally print it in sepia tones or grayscale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I take it, no-one has an answer for this question? Then how are we supposed to vote, and what criteria are you all using to decide which one to vote for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that it's better for the reasons you state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support While this one seems slightly tilted compared to the grayscale one, that's fixable, and this one captures more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case the left, bottom and right edges are all straight in this one; only the top is curved. The other image has more tilts, though the top is more symmetrically curved. I suspect they come from different prints. I would be opposed to "fixing" this -- it's a faithful scan by professionals. In the end, the print is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hemiolaus cobaltina underside aberration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I can see no 'shadow problem'. No layers have been used. Please explain what you are seeing. Charles (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I couldn't find the "shadow problem" mentioned above. I like the colours, the DoF, and also the butterfly's shadow underneath it. It helps to understand the shape of the wings. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I now see the original "unrecorded aberration" was in fact a weird Photoshopping mistake. While I'm sure Charles didn't do it to "invent" a new species, I'm not comfortable with this degree of carelessness.   Abstain . -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Multiple stitching errors (see notes). Unfortunately including what you've identified as an aberration. -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment You're absolutely right Ryan Hodnett that something very weird has happened during editing. It's not stitching as this was just one image so it must be human error. Apologies. Will reprocess. Charles (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there still an aberration? Where? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, but I don't think I can change file name till voting process over. Charles (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You could see the shadow problem what Im talking about here File:Bad union between layers that generates shadow.jpg. User:Podzemnik --Photographer 02:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I can just about see a difference. No layers were used, but a shadow can come from colour noise reduction - that's the only possibility I can think of. See what you think of the new version Photographer Charles (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you see any problems with new version? Photographer Charles (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still see the same problem in lesser proportion. My suggestion is not to repair an image to which a noise reduction has been applied wrongly, but to rethink the way you use to eliminate noise and start the process again but in the right way. --Photographer 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Violet-backed starling (Cinnyricinclus leucogaster verreauxi) male.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

* Sorry, I prefer rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue rock thrush (male) at Gamla Nature Reserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 19:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created & uploaded by Artemy Voikhansky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Why this small size for a 30mpx camera? --Photographer 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small, but fine details. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes it's small and a better crop would make it smaller still. Not too much definition in the feathers. Charles (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice face and eye, but oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small for sure. But the details are good enough for me and it looks very nice. --Hockei (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.05.-32-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Wiesen-Storchschnabel.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 18:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Untitled by Mansour Qandriz (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 06:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Not good enough, I'm afraid. For a file on Commons, I expect there to be a proper file desription.--Peulle (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting and nice colors. I would support with an English description. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that an English-language description was added. Interesting painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Castle of Montpoupon 19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 22:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Category added, Tournasol7 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --Photographer 02:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Those tones in the sky don't like realistic to me and the compo of a nice middle-age castle and the modern asphalt road doesn't work for me either. Indeed I'd have avoided the road and looked for a different angle. Otherwise a nice one Poco2 10:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  •   Info All by me. I quite enjoy a play of the sun and the fog together with different coloured areas of moss and heather. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lovely and making my homesick. I wonder if the bottom right is a bit over cooked? If you are using dehaze, for example, perhaps use a mask or gradient to not apply it to near foreground. It just looks a bit crunchy and too contrasty there. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin! I'm using only a bit of dehaze (+5) and clarity (+5) for the whole picture. I think the bottom right looks too contrasty because it's a north facing slope without much light. I applied a mask there to make it look more natural. I hope it's better. Greetings, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the foreground looks strange and a bit unnatural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You think so? Even now after I applied the mask? It's looking OK to me now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I find that this photo looks good at 40% of its size, which is bigger than 50% of the previous version's size that that one looks good at. At those sizes, I really don't perceive a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous, expansive scene. Pixel-level sharpness could be better but fine given the resolution. -- King of ♠ 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid view.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not a friend of panoramics. But this looks great for me. --Hockei (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Imho the quality of the image does not reach FP bar. The right and left edges are very unsharp (neither the closer nor the farer parts are sharp) - with a multi-image shot this can be easily avoided. Especially the darker parts of the image look imho noisy and partly overprocessed - I guess too much clarity and too much shadow brightening. It looks if the focus is on the foreground (the stony path in the foreground) with the result that the background could be sharper. Motive, composition and light have FP potential, but imho not the technical execution --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Tuxyso, I agree at pixel level it is soft in places and some of the processing has perhaps contributed to noise. However it is 105MP so if I reduce it 50% you get this 24MP image, which is very sharp, with no noise. So I wonder if the 24MP image had been nominated, would you have opposed? -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's an everlasting discussion... I have to assess the image which is nominated here. The nominee has some technical issues which are avoidable - no unattainable requirements - especillay the sharpness at the very left and very right side and the the editing of darker parts. My very personal opinion: An FP should be a pleasure to view in a scaled version and also in full res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I wish you the funds to buy a high DPI monitor so that "full res" has pixels too small for you to peep. Your vote is nothing less than a request to downsize and an insult to those generous enough to donate images full size. This image is 5.3 metres across when viewed "full res" on a standard monitor. The nomination is for a JPG in the repository, not a specific-sized rendering in your browser. Commons is not a publisher. How you choose to view the image is your choice, though made somewhat awkward by the MediaWiki interface. If you choose to view magnified so large it doesn't fit in your room, and view it from 50cm, then the flaws you see are purely down to your bad viewing choices. This kind of vote is harmful to the project. Please consider that while you may choose to downsize your images so they look pixel-perfect at 100%, others do not and should not be punished for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been absent from COM a few years and must observe that the verbal tonality in discussions changed negatively. In the past the discussions here were very constructive and also valueing. In the current disussion I made an argument with in-detail explanatory statement and Colin repeatedly shortens it to: "Looks bad in 100%, please downscale". Again, and also for [[Ikan Kekek: I do NOT postulate to downscale the image to look better. I only argue that the technical issues which could be avoided by a better shooting technique (more precise focus point, more overapping especially at the edges) and a better post-processing. Please sustain also a deviating (my very own) opinion. There is not only one truth. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable point of view and thank you for clarifying. Note that I haven't voted on this nomination, but have only made some comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Tuxyso, the fact remains that if this image had been downsized and uploaded at 24 or 36MP you would not have noticed any sharpness or noise issues. You may have complained about other processing issues, but not those. So, some of your oppose rationale is only present because you are pixel peeping a gigantic 105MP image. You insist that "I have to assess the image which is nominated here" but the image that is nominated here can be viewed by you at any resolution you wish. Just because it is uploaded at 105MP does not mean you have to view it or review it at that size. That is your choice, and one I think that is unfair on the nominator. You also insist it must be "a pleasure...in full res version". So, while you can claim you haven't requested it be downsized, your vote is an implicit message that nominators will be punished with an oppose if they dare to nominate any image that is not perfect at 100%. The consequence of pixel peeping is that some nominators downsize to avoid these kinds of votes. And so we end up getting 6MP natural landscape images at FPC in 2019 when we should be getting 24MP+ images. Commons is poorer as a result.
I feel strongly that pixel peeping reviews harm Commons FP. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping where I noted "a 24MP image is not twice as bad as a 6MP image. It is superior in every way, except to a pixel peeper.". Sure, with better technique and better equipment and better processing, we might have a super sharp and noiseless 105MP image. But we do also have a this image that is the same one nominated here, just rendered in your browser at 24MP. That is the nominated image too, but you choose to find fault when you choose to view it magnified 2x on your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Livraria Cultura, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 02:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info All by -- Photographer 02:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose I appreciate the effort, but the sides are a bit too tight all over; I don't think 18mm DX (27mm FX) is sufficiently wide for this kind of shot. -- King of ♠ 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic scene.--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The "chaos" is what is interesting here. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Yann. --MB-one (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the chaos and the subject. Looks like a lovely place. I don't particularly like the composition (on the right: lots of empty carpet, but on the left the man and bookshelf are cut; the floating dragon is cut; the ceiling in the upper left corner is disturbing). The customers in the foreground could be more in focus. There are issues with the banister in several places, looks like stitching errors. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It seems like the columns are not really straight. Can you fix that please? Otherwise it's a great scene and I'm happy to support it. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Podzemnik   Done --Photographer 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now it seems to me like the customers on the 1st floor are going downwards towards the left side. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It might have worked if it was just the customers on the floor. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Puelle. -- Karelj (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Großvenediger vom Kröndlhorn.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 21:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info I gave a bit more contrast. --Milseburg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the juxtaposition between the snow-capped mountains in the back and the green mountain in the front. -- King of ♠ 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel like it's nice, but not as nice as some of the other mountain shots that I've seen.--Peulle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I understand the opposition, but to me, this is beautiful, well labeled and worth a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's good quality anyway, and I appreciate the notes giving information about the different peaks. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but one of the best on Commons? I don't think so. Basically, too much haze. Yann (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 19:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info (Since I'm aware that it will be mentioned otherwise:) With en:Template:CSS image crop and its local variants, I don't see any need to crop out parts of an image presentation. That's a hand-painted brown and gold border that was created by the artist, so why remove it? (And it'll give something to crop out if trying to print it:5x4.4 is hardly a common aspect ratio, but you can get it to a few sensible ratios if you have a border to crop.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you mind offering a crop version as an alternative? --Yann (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to. The main image is not absolutely rectangular in shape, so either a small amount of the edge of the painting would need cropped out, or I'd have to restore outwards the edge of the painting, when, as I said, there's a perfectly good way to make arbitrary crops for thumbnails. And I really don't like changing artistic intent for relatively capricious reasons. Plus, it would be inconsistent with File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act4 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1880 Paris.jpg, and other future potential images. And it's not like Chaperon does this with every image he makes; it's actually relatively rare, and may indicate something specific, like them being intended for display (the ones they're done on tend to be particularly visually impressive). Oh, and I literally spent 16 hours restoring that fucking border. If I didn't feel strongly about it before - well, I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but afterwards...
In any case, we're not just a place to make thumbnails for Wikipedia (Hell, a number of our featured images here are not and will not ever be used on any Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiversity, or any other related project). It would be silly to create a situation where a number of possible reuses are made more difficult because we concealed the one most useful for printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, we can literally just do this with CSS image crop and some surprisingly annoying maths:

{{CSS image crop |Image=Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg |bSize= 466|cWidth=370 |cHeight=311 |oTop= 51|oLeft= 47}}

...I am thinking of doing a template to take the equations - which are slightly complex. For example, for a crop of this image, with width X, here's the values you need bSize = X*5084/4035 | cWidth=X | cHeight=X* 3388/4035 | oTop= X*551/4035| oLeft=X*508/4035 - It feels like we can simplify the CSS crop interface by using numbers auto-generated by crop tool (which I used to figure out what numbers to use to form those equations) and plugging them in instead. They're much more readily available. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Bomen langs bergpad in dichte mist 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 16:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ISS-49 Lake Urmia, northwestern Iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 13:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment IMHO the "real" sharpness is OK, the picture was not sharpened afterwards. --Ras67 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting and educational satellite image, shows the extent of shrunk due to various manmade reasons. --Gnosis (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:004 2018 05 14 Extremes Wetter.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2019 at 21:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

done, image size now is 13.60 Megapixel, file size is 5 Mpx according to Commons guideline. --F. Riedelio (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@F. Riedelio: Thanks. There are 2 dust spots on the left. Can you fix that? Yann (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. Fix is done. --F. Riedelio (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tuxyso (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support on dust spots being cleaned up. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lightning is always worth seeing. But in this case I do not find the composition outstanding. The level of other lightnings in the according FP category is not reached. --Milseburg (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only light in the darkness, no buildings, no horizon, indistinct tree, I don't find the content very interesting. Compared to other FPs of similar lightnings like File:Port_and_lighthouse_overnight_storm_with_lightning_in_Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg for example, showing some environments, clouds, structures, etc., this one is just empty. But it will certainly become a QI if nominated there -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not as great as the photo Basile links above, but I like the lines and the image enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support There's only one physical object in the entire composition, but the lightning itself is what makes the composition work. Of course it's luck that caused the lightning to travel in a particular path, but regardless for me it is worth a feature. -- King of ♠ 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

秀逸除外候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  •   Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Broich-Eingang-Vorderfront-2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carved portal at Haw Phra Kaew temple in Vientiane Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 04:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
  •   Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant   Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 14:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duna en Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 12:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.06.17.-21-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I was thinking about to nominate both of them because they have very different compositions. But it was or rather is not possible until the current voting period of my other nomination is over. So I had to make a decision and this picture was my first choice. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I like that one. Fully elongated vole, seems more active. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I prefer this to the other ones (nicer pose and has straw in mouth). But the flash reflecting off the fir is not the best light. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Fir? What fir?   Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Plexippus petersi (jumping spider) on a human finger at golden hour.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 00:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I think you're right :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Hockei (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Charles (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:В потчётном карауле.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ВладимирФото - uploaded by ВладимирФото - nominated by AKA MBG -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Is that a huge lens flare in the tree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good focus to the girls, but what happened with the clouds? IMO also relative small photo to be a FP. I would support this photo for Q1, but it's techincally not good enough for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting picture, but the light is too harsh. As a result, the luminous parts seem overexposed. Lens flare in the trees. Beside, the passerby in front of the building spoils a bit the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Per others, quality issues -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Frightening and funny at the same time, these three gunwomen. Apart from technical issues, the guy in the background spoils it completely. It's a shame, it could have been a very special motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the composition, but unfortunately the technical issues spoil it. —Bruce1eetalk 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Complicated composition and harsh light. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Notgeld 1 Mark 1921.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
  •   Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 14-22 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of Spitzkoppe, a group of bald granite peaks located between Usakos and Swakopmund in the Namib desert of Namibia. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like Mercury after being terraformed. Makes me thirsty just scrolling through it—the very definition of "arid". Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The central frame suffers from camera shake, I guess. Or whatever, the image is unsharp in the center. Very sorry, as it is really impressive. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't find it unsharp. The landscape is very impressive and I really enjoyed exploring the panorama, including the village close to the mountain in the center. However, I think the panorama is tilted. The right side is lower than the left side and the telecommunication tower on the hill on the right side is leaning right. So I think it needs ACW rotation. Could you have a look at that? Maybe it's just a coincidence. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Podzemnik: I've applied a slight tilt and some perspective correction, also some extra sharpening, FYI Uoaei1 Poco2 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Szczodre Gody MIR 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 12:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Pola lilla - uploaded by Pola lilla - nominated by Wojsław Brożyna -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why are the bowls empty? Strange sort of feast with empty bowls. I'm tempted to oppose for lack of food interest. Also, even at preview size, the bread on the left looks like it was crudely Photoshopped into the frame, but I think this is just a consequence of the far too high global sharpening applied to the image or perhaps it was brightened? -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice motíf, but the light is unimpressive and the image is quite grainy. I also see green chromatic aberration.--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Also, even without those issues, the background is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 11:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Alfred Stieglitz (scan by Google Art Project), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would eventually propose File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg as an alternative: smaller, but less noise. Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You're the nominator, so which one do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer the grayscale version, but I know some people will object. Ultimately, I don't care which one is featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the sepia version below better. But which was original? Did he originally print it in sepia tones or grayscale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I take it, no-one has an answer for this question? Then how are we supposed to vote, and what criteria are you all using to decide which one to vote for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that it's better for the reasons you state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support While this one seems slightly tilted compared to the grayscale one, that's fixable, and this one captures more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case the left, bottom and right edges are all straight in this one; only the top is curved. The other image has more tilts, though the top is more symmetrically curved. I suspect they come from different prints. I would be opposed to "fixing" this -- it's a faithful scan by professionals. In the end, the print is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hemiolaus cobaltina underside aberration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I can see no 'shadow problem'. No layers have been used. Please explain what you are seeing. Charles (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I couldn't find the "shadow problem" mentioned above. I like the colours, the DoF, and also the butterfly's shadow underneath it. It helps to understand the shape of the wings. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I now see the original "unrecorded aberration" was in fact a weird Photoshopping mistake. While I'm sure Charles didn't do it to "invent" a new species, I'm not comfortable with this degree of carelessness.   Abstain . -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Multiple stitching errors (see notes). Unfortunately including what you've identified as an aberration. -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment You're absolutely right Ryan Hodnett that something very weird has happened during editing. It's not stitching as this was just one image so it must be human error. Apologies. Will reprocess. Charles (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there still an aberration? Where? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, but I don't think I can change file name till voting process over. Charles (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You could see the shadow problem what Im talking about here File:Bad union between layers that generates shadow.jpg. User:Podzemnik --Photographer 02:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I can just about see a difference. No layers were used, but a shadow can come from colour noise reduction - that's the only possibility I can think of. See what you think of the new version Photographer Charles (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you see any problems with new version? Photographer Charles (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still see the same problem in lesser proportion. My suggestion is not to repair an image to which a noise reduction has been applied wrongly, but to rethink the way you use to eliminate noise and start the process again but in the right way. --Photographer 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Violet-backed starling (Cinnyricinclus leucogaster verreauxi) male.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

* Sorry, I prefer rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue rock thrush (male) at Gamla Nature Reserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 19:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created & uploaded by Artemy Voikhansky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Why this small size for a 30mpx camera? --Photographer 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small, but fine details. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes it's small and a better crop would make it smaller still. Not too much definition in the feathers. Charles (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice face and eye, but oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small for sure. But the details are good enough for me and it looks very nice. --Hockei (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.05.-32-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Wiesen-Storchschnabel.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 18:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Untitled by Mansour Qandriz (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 06:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Not good enough, I'm afraid. For a file on Commons, I expect there to be a proper file desription.--Peulle (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting and nice colors. I would support with an English description. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that an English-language description was added. Interesting painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Castle of Montpoupon 19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 22:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Category added, Tournasol7 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --Photographer 02:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Those tones in the sky don't like realistic to me and the compo of a nice middle-age castle and the modern asphalt road doesn't work for me either. Indeed I'd have avoided the road and looked for a different angle. Otherwise a nice one Poco2 10:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  •   Info All by me. I quite enjoy a play of the sun and the fog together with different coloured areas of moss and heather. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lovely and making my homesick. I wonder if the bottom right is a bit over cooked? If you are using dehaze, for example, perhaps use a mask or gradient to not apply it to near foreground. It just looks a bit crunchy and too contrasty there. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin! I'm using only a bit of dehaze (+5) and clarity (+5) for the whole picture. I think the bottom right looks too contrasty because it's a north facing slope without much light. I applied a mask there to make it look more natural. I hope it's better. Greetings, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the foreground looks strange and a bit unnatural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You think so? Even now after I applied the mask? It's looking OK to me now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I find that this photo looks good at 40% of its size, which is bigger than 50% of the previous version's size that that one looks good at. At those sizes, I really don't perceive a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous, expansive scene. Pixel-level sharpness could be better but fine given the resolution. -- King of ♠ 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid view.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not a friend of panoramics. But this looks great for me. --Hockei (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Imho the quality of the image does not reach FP bar. The right and left edges are very unsharp (neither the closer nor the farer parts are sharp) - with a multi-image shot this can be easily avoided. Especially the darker parts of the image look imho noisy and partly overprocessed - I guess too much clarity and too much shadow brightening. It looks if the focus is on the foreground (the stony path in the foreground) with the result that the background could be sharper. Motive, composition and light have FP potential, but imho not the technical execution --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Tuxyso, I agree at pixel level it is soft in places and some of the processing has perhaps contributed to noise. However it is 105MP so if I reduce it 50% you get this 24MP image, which is very sharp, with no noise. So I wonder if the 24MP image had been nominated, would you have opposed? -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's an everlasting discussion... I have to assess the image which is nominated here. The nominee has some technical issues which are avoidable - no unattainable requirements - especillay the sharpness at the very left and very right side and the the editing of darker parts. My very personal opinion: An FP should be a pleasure to view in a scaled version and also in full res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I wish you the funds to buy a high DPI monitor so that "full res" has pixels too small for you to peep. Your vote is nothing less than a request to downsize and an insult to those generous enough to donate images full size. This image is 5.3 metres across when viewed "full res" on a standard monitor. The nomination is for a JPG in the repository, not a specific-sized rendering in your browser. Commons is not a publisher. How you choose to view the image is your choice, though made somewhat awkward by the MediaWiki interface. If you choose to view magnified so large it doesn't fit in your room, and view it from 50cm, then the flaws you see are purely down to your bad viewing choices. This kind of vote is harmful to the project. Please consider that while you may choose to downsize your images so they look pixel-perfect at 100%, others do not and should not be punished for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been absent from COM a few years and must observe that the verbal tonality in discussions changed negatively. In the past the discussions here were very constructive and also valueing. In the current disussion I made an argument with in-detail explanatory statement and Colin repeatedly shortens it to: "Looks bad in 100%, please downscale". Again, and also for [[Ikan Kekek: I do NOT postulate to downscale the image to look better. I only argue that the technical issues which could be avoided by a better shooting technique (more precise focus point, more overapping especially at the edges) and a better post-processing. Please sustain also a deviating (my very own) opinion. There is not only one truth. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable point of view and thank you for clarifying. Note that I haven't voted on this nomination, but have only made some comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Tuxyso, the fact remains that if this image had been downsized and uploaded at 24 or 36MP you would not have noticed any sharpness or noise issues. You may have complained about other processing issues, but not those. So, some of your oppose rationale is only present because you are pixel peeping a gigantic 105MP image. You insist that "I have to assess the image which is nominated here" but the image that is nominated here can be viewed by you at any resolution you wish. Just because it is uploaded at 105MP does not mean you have to view it or review it at that size. That is your choice, and one I think that is unfair on the nominator. You also insist it must be "a pleasure...in full res version". So, while you can claim you haven't requested it be downsized, your vote is an implicit message that nominators will be punished with an oppose if they dare to nominate any image that is not perfect at 100%. The consequence of pixel peeping is that some nominators downsize to avoid these kinds of votes. And so we end up getting 6MP natural landscape images at FPC in 2019 when we should be getting 24MP+ images. Commons is poorer as a result.
I feel strongly that pixel peeping reviews harm Commons FP. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping where I noted "a 24MP image is not twice as bad as a 6MP image. It is superior in every way, except to a pixel peeper.". Sure, with better technique and better equipment and better processing, we might have a super sharp and noiseless 105MP image. But we do also have a this image that is the same one nominated here, just rendered in your browser at 24MP. That is the nominated image too, but you choose to find fault when you choose to view it magnified 2x on your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Livraria Cultura, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 02:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info All by -- Photographer 02:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose I appreciate the effort, but the sides are a bit too tight all over; I don't think 18mm DX (27mm FX) is sufficiently wide for this kind of shot. -- King of ♠ 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic scene.--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The "chaos" is what is interesting here. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Yann. --MB-one (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the chaos and the subject. Looks like a lovely place. I don't particularly like the composition (on the right: lots of empty carpet, but on the left the man and bookshelf are cut; the floating dragon is cut; the ceiling in the upper left corner is disturbing). The customers in the foreground could be more in focus. There are issues with the banister in several places, looks like stitching errors. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It seems like the columns are not really straight. Can you fix that please? Otherwise it's a great scene and I'm happy to support it. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Podzemnik   Done --Photographer 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now it seems to me like the customers on the 1st floor are going downwards towards the left side. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It might have worked if it was just the customers on the floor. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Puelle. -- Karelj (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Großvenediger vom Kröndlhorn.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 21:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info I gave a bit more contrast. --Milseburg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the juxtaposition between the snow-capped mountains in the back and the green mountain in the front. -- King of ♠ 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel like it's nice, but not as nice as some of the other mountain shots that I've seen.--Peulle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I understand the opposition, but to me, this is beautiful, well labeled and worth a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's good quality anyway, and I appreciate the notes giving information about the different peaks. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but one of the best on Commons? I don't think so. Basically, too much haze. Yann (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 19:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info (Since I'm aware that it will be mentioned otherwise:) With en:Template:CSS image crop and its local variants, I don't see any need to crop out parts of an image presentation. That's a hand-painted brown and gold border that was created by the artist, so why remove it? (And it'll give something to crop out if trying to print it:5x4.4 is hardly a common aspect ratio, but you can get it to a few sensible ratios if you have a border to crop.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you mind offering a crop version as an alternative? --Yann (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to. The main image is not absolutely rectangular in shape, so either a small amount of the edge of the painting would need cropped out, or I'd have to restore outwards the edge of the painting, when, as I said, there's a perfectly good way to make arbitrary crops for thumbnails. And I really don't like changing artistic intent for relatively capricious reasons. Plus, it would be inconsistent with File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act4 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1880 Paris.jpg, and other future potential images. And it's not like Chaperon does this with every image he makes; it's actually relatively rare, and may indicate something specific, like them being intended for display (the ones they're done on tend to be particularly visually impressive). Oh, and I literally spent 16 hours restoring that fucking border. If I didn't feel strongly about it before - well, I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but afterwards...
In any case, we're not just a place to make thumbnails for Wikipedia (Hell, a number of our featured images here are not and will not ever be used on any Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiversity, or any other related project). It would be silly to create a situation where a number of possible reuses are made more difficult because we concealed the one most useful for printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, we can literally just do this with CSS image crop and some surprisingly annoying maths:

{{CSS image crop |Image=Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg |bSize= 466|cWidth=370 |cHeight=311 |oTop= 51|oLeft= 47}}

...I am thinking of doing a template to take the equations - which are slightly complex. For example, for a crop of this image, with width X, here's the values you need bSize = X*5084/4035 | cWidth=X | cHeight=X* 3388/4035 | oTop= X*551/4035| oLeft=X*508/4035 - It feels like we can simplify the CSS crop interface by using numbers auto-generated by crop tool (which I used to figure out what numbers to use to form those equations) and plugging them in instead. They're much more readily available. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Bomen langs bergpad in dichte mist 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 16:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ISS-49 Lake Urmia, northwestern Iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 13:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.